Ex Parte Kaminsky

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 2014

11536526 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID L. KAMINSKY ____________________ Appeal 2012-006329 Application 11/536,526 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David L. Kaminsky (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-006329 Application 11/536,526 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A computer-implementable method of typing a resource- based event in a rule system, the computer-implementable method comprising: defining an event type according to a resource property that is associated with the event type; creating a resource definition that describes which one or more event type can occur in a resource; storing the resource definition in the rule system; defining each of multiple rules in the rule system as being applicable for use on either a synchronous data or an asynchronous data, wherein the synchronous data includes a request for a particular rule, and wherein the asynchronous data does not specify a particular rule to which received data is applied; receiving data from a particular resource in the data processing system; determining if said data received is synchronous data or asynchronous data; and in response to determining that the data received is asynchronous data, searching the rule system only for rules that use asynchronous data as an input; correlating the asynchronous data with a particular rule that is associated with a resource definition for the particular resource; and applying the particular rule to the asynchronous data. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Vrenjak Apte US 5,063,523 US 6,289,395 B1 Nov. 5, 1991 Sept. 11, 2001 Mazzaferri US 2007/0174429 A1 July 26, 2007 Appeal 2012-006329 Application 11/536,526 3 REJECTIONS1 Claims 1–3, 6–9, 12–15, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vrenjak and Apte. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vrenjak, Apte, and Mazzaferri. OPINION Each of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 7, and 13 contains the limitations italicized in the reproduction of claim 1, supra. The Examiner and Appellant appear to agree that, “within the context of the presently claimed invention, . . . synchronous data is defined as data that ‘includes a request for a particular rule,’ and . . . asynchronous data is defined as data that ‘does not identify a particular rule to which received data is applied.’” Reply Br. 3; Ans. 12; see Spec. ¶ 67 (stating, “wherein the synchronous data includes a request for a particular rule, and wherein the asynchronous data does not specify a particular rule to which received data is applied”). The Examiner and Appellant disagree, however, at least at the outset, on whether the event messages discussed by Vrenjak (col. 1, l. 58 to col. 2, l. 19) are synchronous data or asynchronous data. See Appeal Br. 8 (stating that “Vrenjak only teaches the use of rules that are used in asynchronous activity by comparing an attribute with a rule in order to determine if the attribute and the rule match”); Ans. 12. The Examiner’s position appears to be that the event messages discussed in that passage of Vrenjak having attributes that match a rule are synchronous data and that the 1 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 4. Appeal 2012-006329 Application 11/536,526 4 event messages with no attribute matching a rule are asynchronous data. Ans. 12. In other words, the Examiner treats the attribute(s) as a request for a rule that matches the attribute(s). The event message-to-rule matching process described by Vrenjak appears to be similar to the rule processing that Appellant describes for matching asynchronous data to a rule. See Spec. ¶¶ 24–25. Thus, Appellant’s characterization of the event messages described by Vrenjak as asynchronous data, rather than synchronous data, appears to be consistent with Appellant’s disclosure. In any event, even accepting the Examiner’s position that an attribute that matches a rule constitutes a request for a particular rule (thereby qualifying the event message containing such attribute as “synchronous data”), for the reasons discussed below, we determine that the Examiner does not establish a sound basis that Vrenjak discloses “defining each of multiple rules in the rule system as being applicable for use on either a synchronous data or an asynchronous data,” “determining if said data received is synchronous data or asynchronous data[,] and in response to determining that the data received is asynchronous data, searching the rule system only for rules that use asynchronous data as an input,” as called for in claims 1, 7, and 13. The Examiner emphasizes that the claim language is worded in the alternative, such that only synchronous or asynchronous is required by the claim. Ans. 13. In other words, according to the Examiner, either synchronous or asynchronous data is all that is required to meet the limitations of the claim. Id. The Examiner finds that Vrenjak’s disclosure of event messages having an attribute matching a rule “maps to synchronous data.” Ans. 12. However, Appellant’s claims require defining each of Appeal 2012-006329 Application 11/536,526 5 multiple rules in the rule system as applicable for use on either synchronous data or asynchronous data, determining if the data received is synchronous data or asynchronous data, and, in response to determining the data is asynchronous data, searching the rule system only for rules that use asynchronous data as an input. Reading these claim limitations together in their entirety, the Examiner’s position that the “asynchronous data” limitations in the claims may be ignored as an unnecessary alternative is not reasonable. Following the Examiner’s reasoning that Vrenjak’s event messages having attribute(s) matching a rule are synchronous data, the rules in Vrenjak’s Rule Table are defined for use with event messages having matching attributes. In other words, adopting the Examiner’s position that event messages having attribute(s) with a matching rule are synchronous data, Vrenjak’s rules are defined for use with synchronous data, and not for use with asynchronous data. The Examiner appears to be reading the claimed “determining” step on Vrenjak’s determination as to whether the received event message has an attribute mapped to a specific rule. Ans. 6 (alluding to having or not having a specific attribute mapped to a specific rule). This determination is made at 212 in the flow chart depicted in Vrenjak’s Figure 3. However, as depicted in Vrenjak’s Figure 3, and as disclosed by Vrenjak, if no match is found at 212, “control returns to 204.” Vrenjak, col. 11, l. 58. It is not entirely clear whether, upon returning to 204, Vrenjak’s control will proceed to the next received event or repeat the monitoring of the event message already determined not to have an attribute matching a rule. In either case, Vrenjak does not disclose, in response to determining that the received event lacks an attribute matching a rule (and Appeal 2012-006329 Application 11/536,526 6 thus is asynchronous data), “searching the rule system only for rules that use asynchronous data as an input.” As noted above, following the Examiner’s reasoning, Vrenjak does not disclose defining any rules for use on asynchronous data. Further, the Examiner does not rely on either Apte or Mazzaferri for any teaching that would overcome this deficiency in Vrenjak. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 and of their dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–20. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is reversed. REVERSED llw